THE
ITS
HISTORY AND DISCOVERY;
INCLUDING AN ACCOUNT OF
THE CONVENTION OF THE ESCURIAL,
ALSO,
THE TREATIES AND NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN,
HELD AT VARIOUS TIMES FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF
A BOUNDARY LINE,
AND
AN EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE QUESTION
IN RESPECT TO
FACTS AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.
BY
TRAVERS TWISS, D.C.L., F.R.S.,
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
AND ADVOCATE IN DOCTORS’ COMMONS.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO., 200 BROADWAY.
PHILADELPHIA:
GEO. S. APPLETON, 148 CHESNUT-STREET.
CINCINNATI:—DERBY, BRADLEY & CO., 113 MAIN-STREET.
MDCCCXLVI.
The object which the author had in view, in instituting the accompanyinginquiry into the historical facts and the negotiations connected with theOregon Territory, was to contribute, as far as his individual servicesmight avail, to the peaceful solution of the question at issue between theUnited States of America and Great Britain. He could not resist theconviction, on reading several able treatises on the subject, that thecase of the United States had been overstated by her writers andnegotiators; and the perusal of Mr. Greenhow’s Official Memoir, andsubsequent History of Oregon and California, confirmed him in thisimpression, as they sought to establish more than was consistent with theacknowledged difficulty of a question, which has now been the subject offour fruitless negotiations. He determined, in consequence of thisconviction, to investigate carefully the records of ancient discoveriesand other matters of history connected with the North-west coast ofAmerica, concerning which much contradictory statement is to be met within writers of acknowledged reputation. The result is, the present work,which has unavoidably assumed a much larger bulk than was anticipated by[Pg vi]the author when he commenced the inquiry: it is hoped, however, that thearrangement of the chapters will enable the reader to select, withoutdifficulty, those portions of the subject which he may deem to be mostdeserving of his attention.
The expeditions of Drake and of Gali have thus necessarily come underconsideration; and the views of the author will be found to differ, inrespect to both these navigators, from those advanced by Mr. Greenhow,more especially in respect to Drake. Had the author noticed at an earlierperiod Mr. Greenhow’s remark in the Preface to the second edition of hisHistory, that he has “never deviated from the rule of not citingauthorities at second-hand,” he would have thought it right to apologisefor attributing the incorrectness of Mr. Greenhow’s statements as to therespective accounts of Drake’s expedition, to his having been misled bythe authority of the article “Drake,” in the Biographie Universelle. Hewould even now apologise, were not any other supposition under thecircumstances less respectful to Mr. Greenhow himself.
In regard to Juan de Fuca, if the author could have supposed that in thecourse of the last negotiations at Washington, Mr. Buchanan would havepronounced that De Fuca’s Voyage “no longer admits of reasonable doubt,”h